Post by hibernicus on Nov 28, 2018 20:29:04 GMT
The article is certainly superior to most of his recent stuff, in that it shows signs of actual observation and reflection rather than simple reiteration.
That said, it also has some characteristics of the later Fennell. For example, he asserts point-blank that the Eastern bloc is superior to the Western bloc because the former believes in something while the latter is purely materialist/hedonist. Given the history of the Eastern bloc (even allowing that he was writing during the Khrushchev thaw rather than High Stalinism, that's very ominous - there are instances of Catholic social thinkers in Europe who were pro-fascist between the wars and pro-Soviet later, not out of opportunism (and they had some legit criticism of the West and liberalism, as Fennell has) but because they believed society needed to be bound together by a shared creed. He then proceeds not only to say that the Irish Church exaggerates the communist danger, which is fair enough, but to suggest that it only does so because the West gives some degree of hypocritical outward respect to the clergy - in fact the East was ideologically opposed to the existence of civil society outside state control in a way that made it virtually impossible for the church (and much else) to function. (The fact that the West has subsequently developed some similar characteristics in a way that suggests there was something in the old "convergence" theory that they would develop similar forms of bureaucratic rule is not quite relevant here.)
Again, given his populist shtick in later years and laments over the decline of rural society, his dismissive remarks about a "rural proletariat" held in line by hellfire preaching and his remark that the Church should spend its money on developing intellectuals instead of building churches (even though rapid suburban expansion made this necessary) or on the African missions (which later Fennell has been lamenting - quite rightly - as a great Irish Catholic achievement unjustly forgotten) is reminiscent of the worst form of elitist liberal who thinks only intellectuals really matter. (Again, this is partly explained by the fact that in the early 60s it was widely believed that popular culture would be much more literate and given to intellectual self-improvement than has subsequently been the case.)
That said, it also has some characteristics of the later Fennell. For example, he asserts point-blank that the Eastern bloc is superior to the Western bloc because the former believes in something while the latter is purely materialist/hedonist. Given the history of the Eastern bloc (even allowing that he was writing during the Khrushchev thaw rather than High Stalinism, that's very ominous - there are instances of Catholic social thinkers in Europe who were pro-fascist between the wars and pro-Soviet later, not out of opportunism (and they had some legit criticism of the West and liberalism, as Fennell has) but because they believed society needed to be bound together by a shared creed. He then proceeds not only to say that the Irish Church exaggerates the communist danger, which is fair enough, but to suggest that it only does so because the West gives some degree of hypocritical outward respect to the clergy - in fact the East was ideologically opposed to the existence of civil society outside state control in a way that made it virtually impossible for the church (and much else) to function. (The fact that the West has subsequently developed some similar characteristics in a way that suggests there was something in the old "convergence" theory that they would develop similar forms of bureaucratic rule is not quite relevant here.)
Again, given his populist shtick in later years and laments over the decline of rural society, his dismissive remarks about a "rural proletariat" held in line by hellfire preaching and his remark that the Church should spend its money on developing intellectuals instead of building churches (even though rapid suburban expansion made this necessary) or on the African missions (which later Fennell has been lamenting - quite rightly - as a great Irish Catholic achievement unjustly forgotten) is reminiscent of the worst form of elitist liberal who thinks only intellectuals really matter. (Again, this is partly explained by the fact that in the early 60s it was widely believed that popular culture would be much more literate and given to intellectual self-improvement than has subsequently been the case.)